sqrt

[Marcin]

But I must use only stadnard C!

[Joona I Palaste]

Marcin <mj***@pf.pl> scribbled the following:

But I must use only stadnard C!

Then you've come to the right place.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-------------------------------------------------------- rules! --------/
"I am lying."
- Anon

[Dirk Feytons]

Marcin wrote:

But I must use only stadnard C!

Check sqrt() from <math.h>.

--
Dirk

(PGP keyID: 0x448BC5DD - http://www.gnupg.org - http://www.pgp.com)

..oO° There's no place like 127.0.0.1 °Oo.

[Ben Pfaff]

mj***@pf.pl (Marcin) writes:

But I must use only stadnard C!

sqrt() *is* standard C.

What is your real problem?
--
"Some people *are* arrogant, and others read the FAQ."
--Chris Dollin

[osmium]

"Marcin" writes:

But I must use only stadnard C!

IIRC this thread tells you what to do. Write your own big number routine
and use Newton's method. There is nothing there that precludes the use of
standard C. What's your problem?

[Gregory Toomey]

Marcin wrote:

But I must use only stadnard C!

As I said a few hours ago, the following Numerical Recipes code gives you
arbitrary precision arithmetic.

And its in Standard C.

www.nr.com/
http://www.library.cornell.edu/nr/bookcpdf/c20-6.pdf

gtoomey

[Richard Bos]

"osmium" <r1********@comcast.net> wrote:

"Marcin" writes:

But I must use only stadnard C!

IIRC this thread tells you what to do.

What thread? _This_ thread starts with the post you're replying to.
There was no References header in that post.

Richard

[osmium]

"Richard Bos" writes:

"osmium" <r1********@comcast.net> wrote:

"Marcin" writes:

> But I must use only stadnard C!

IIRC this thread tells you what to do.

What thread? _This_ thread starts with the post you're replying to.
There was no References header in that post.

You are correct, sir! But there was an earlier thread titled <sqrt
precision?!> from a guy named Marcin and this one was also by Marcin and
dealt with a vaguely similar subject. And, IIRC, the earlier thread told
him what to do. I encapsulated what I thought the best advise was in my
full post.

[CBFalconer]

osmium wrote:

"Richard Bos" writes:

"osmium" <r1********@comcast.net> wrote:

"Marcin" writes:

But I must use only stadnard C!

IIRC this thread tells you what to do.

What thread? _This_ thread starts with the post you're replying to.
There was no References header in that post.

You are correct, sir! But there was an earlier thread titled <sqrt
precision?!> from a guy named Marcin and this one was also by Marcin
and dealt with a vaguely similar subject. And, IIRC, the earlier
thread told him what to do. I encapsulated what I thought the best
advise was in my full post.

Put the blame where it belongs - on the ridiculous brain dead
google interface without quotes and without references. I suggest
selling their stock short - they seem to have suddenly lost their
technical capability and even the ability to correct that.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

[Martin Ambuhl]

Richard Bos wrote:

"osmium" <r1********@comcast.net> wrote:

IIRC this thread tells you what to do.

What thread? _This_ thread starts with the post you're replying to.
There was no References header in that post.

Whachutalkin'bout, Willis?
References: <41**************************@posting.google.com >

--
To the Republic Party:
"..[N]othing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which
has, at all times, characterized political parties. For in politics, as
in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire
and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution."
- Federalist #1 (Hamilton)

[Alan Balmer]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:41:40 -0500, Martin Ambuhl
<ma*****@earthlink.net> wrote:

Richard Bos wrote:

"osmium" <r1********@comcast.net> wrote:

IIRC this thread tells you what to do.

What thread? _This_ thread starts with the post you're replying to.
There was no References header in that post.

Whachutalkin'bout, Willis?
References: <41**************************@posting.google.com >

You need one more level of indirection ;-)

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net

[Richard Bos]

Martin Ambuhl <ma*****@earthlink.net> wrote:

Richard Bos wrote:

"osmium" <r1********@comcast.net> wrote:

IIRC this thread tells you what to do.

What thread? _This_ thread starts with the post you're replying to.
There was no References header in that post.

Whachutalkin'bout, Willis?
References: <41**************************@posting.google.com >

That's the References header in osmium's post, which was correct, not in
the post he replied to, which was (presumably) broken.

Richard

[pete]

Marcin wrote:

But I must use only stadnard C!

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?se...mindspring.com

--
pete

[pete]

CBFalconer wrote:

osmium wrote:

"Richard Bos" writes:

"osmium" <r1********@comcast.net> wrote:
"Marcin" writes:

> But I must use only stadnard C!

IIRC this thread tells you what to do.

What thread? _This_ thread starts with the post you're replying to.
There was no References header in that post.

You are correct, sir! But there was an earlier thread titled <sqrt
precision?!> from a guy named Marcin and this one was also by Marcin
and dealt with a vaguely similar subject. And, IIRC, the earlier
thread told him what to do. I encapsulated what I thought the best
advise was in my full post.

Put the blame where it belongs - on the ridiculous brain dead
google interface without quotes and without references. I suggest
selling their stock short - they seem to have suddenly lost their
technical capability and even the ability to correct that.

Is this old style google any better?

http://groups.google.co.uk/
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl...up=comp.lang.c

--
pete